by Don Brown
I guess it's only natural to view the world through your own life's experiences. Having been in an uncommon profession -- air traffic control -- I suppose that gives me an uncommon view of life. I tend to think I was a little more consumed by my job than others -- even other controllers. For over 20 years, I was not only an air traffic controller by "day" (I worked a different shift every day/night/midnight) but I was either helping start the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) or I was being a safety rep for it. That means, instead of being a father, husband, baseball coach or solar astronomer -- whatever it was other controllers did with their free time -- I was being an air traffic controller during most of my waking hours. (It's how I met our mutual friend, James Fallows -- answering ATC questions online, after work.)
Speaking of which, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up considering the current public debate about public-employee unions. Without a union, I wouldn't have done this, wouldn't have written these, wouldn't have met James and you wouldn't be reading this. Take it for what it's worth.
Moving on. "NextGen" is the FAA's vision for the future of aviation. It looks like different things to different people. Think of it as a "big tent" idea. A big circus tent with three rings in it. You have General Aviation (smaller, private planes), Commercial Aviation (airliners) and Air Traffic Control. Everything looks different depending on which ring you're performing in -- or where you sit in the audience. (I'd best move on before I run any further with this FAA-as-a-three-ring-circus idea.)
James Fallows wrote a book called Free Flight (look over on the right column to find it) about NextGen from a General Aviation perspective. It's an exciting vision of the future. I think I may have unconsciously used a line from it earlier this week.
"America is blessed with a large number of runways. We have 5,194 paved runways."
I hope, after this week's discussion about overscheduled runways, that you can see the possibilities these runways present to the future of aviation (because I want to move on to ATC's future.) I haven't taken the time to count all the runways at our main commercial airports but I'm going to guess at the nice, round figure of 100 runways. (Atlanta has 5, JFK has 4, LaGuardia has 2, you get the idea.) We keep trying to cram the vast majority of America's passenger traffic onto those 100 runways. Think of a trip from Savannah, GA, to Chattanooga, TN. Both airports have plenty of capacity. But you have to fly into the world's busiest airport -- Atlanta -- to make that trip. Or Charlotte, North Carolina (the 8th busiest commercial airport in the country.) You can't go non-stop on an airliner. We have thousands of paved runways but we keep trying to cram everybody onto the same 100 runways.
I'll go out onto a limb here and say that the airlines don't share General Aviation's vision of moving passengers away from those 100 runways (that airlines dominate.) Not to mention how the various airport authorities that own those runways might feel about it. Commercial Aviation sees NextGen as a program to incrementally increase the capacity of airports through improved technology. It is my belief that all that technology -- added together -- won't match the increase in capacity provided by a few more runways at the major airports. And we've already discussed what happens when we build new runways.
Regardless, any of the above depends on the air traffic control system being able to handle the airplanes. NextGen looks very different to air traffic controllers -- sitting in front of a radar scope. That is one of the things the FAA wants to change with NextGen. They would have you believe that we are going to eliminate radar and use GPS.
"The Senate voted Monday to approve a bill that would speed the modernization of the nation's antiquated air traffic control system by replacing radar with GPS technology."
We can "replace" radar with GPS technology (maybe) but we will not "eliminate" radar. Radar is used to track airplanes -- including those that don't want to be tracked. (Think smugglers. Or Al-Qaeda.) Radar is vital to national security. So, the taxpayers will be paying to operate some kind of radar system and the new system using GPS. But unlike the radar system, the taxpayers won't own the new system.
"Unlike traditional FAA projects where the contractor builds the equipment and turns it over to the agency, ITT will own the infrastructure and supply aircraft position data to the FAA."
That, my friends, will be one heck of a toll booth in the sky. (I apologize for the lack of explanations. There simply isn't enough time or space and I've already strayed further afield than I intended to go.)